|
newschoolman
Member
Posts: 1,422
|
|
« Reply #60 on: January 16, 2009, 12:19:PM » |
|
Common error of law nowhere includes the notion of "deliberate error" either. You need to stick to Canon Law and Canon Law principles for common error of law, not your own notions of what should and should not be.
That's the first thing you'd learn in law school. What you personally think is irrelevant. If it is not in the law itself then it doesn't exist. Do not project your own viewpoint onto the law or else you create a new law of your own making that is irrelevant. I am doing no such thing. You are attempting to interpret common error of law into something rediculous that is not at all part of the code -- that a community can deliberately pretend that a priest has faculties when they know (by fact and by law) the he does not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
StevusMagnus
Guest
|
|
« Reply #61 on: January 16, 2009, 12:42:PM » |
|
Nope. An automatic censure was never declared. The Declaration of Suspension was given 1 July 1976. It includes the following:
Those who have been ordained are ipso facto (automatically) suspended from the order received, and, if they were to exercise it, they would be in an irregular and criminal situation.
Cf. Michael Davies, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Vol 1, pp. 215-216.
You'll have to produce the document itself including who issued it and the manner in which it was issued and the full language. "Declared" is a canonical legal term, it does not just mean "written in a letter". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
StevusMagnus
Guest
|
|
« Reply #62 on: January 16, 2009, 12:45:PM » |
|
All that matters is what the law explicitly states and means. Exactly. But why do you pretend that a community can know the truth of the law but then pretend that it does not exist. That they can deliberately pretend that a priest has faculties when they know the truth. If you think that is the letter and intent of the law then you are deluded. Is the deluded one, the one who aplies the law as given, or one who continually applies contingencies of his own making that are not in the law? "Fiction" does not equal "reality". You fail to grasp this. A "fiction" means the law is going to assume common error from the circumstances and supply jurisdiction. Personal beliefs and knowledge are irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
StevusMagnus
Guest
|
|
« Reply #63 on: January 16, 2009, 12:47:PM » |
|
I am doing no such thing. You are attempting to interpret common error of law into something rediculous that is not at all part of the code -- that a community can deliberately pretend that a priest has faculties when they know (by fact and by law) the he does not.
It is irelevant what the community actually thinks, pretends, etc. That is nowhere in the Code or the idea of Common Error of Law. It is only relevant that a situation is such that it could induce a common error of law. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
StevusMagnus
Guest
|
|
« Reply #64 on: January 16, 2009, 12:51:PM » |
|
J. Salza: Again, we are not limited to Mr. Akin’s question of whether “the local ordinary has supplied faculties to an SSPX priest.” There are no reasonable arguments supporting that conclusion. The question, rather, is whether there is “positive and probable doubt of law,” namely, the application of the law recognizing factual common error, for ecclesia supplet to be triggered. As applied here, there are arguments supporting the idea that a community of reasonable persons (average Catholics) would believe an SSPX priest had faculties, leading to factual common error. There may also be arguments supporting the idea that a community of reasonable persons (well-informed Catholics?) would not believe an SSPX priest had faculties so that there is no factual common error (however, it seems that these arguments would not be as strong since it is not what the community actually believes, but only what a community of reasonable persons would be induced to believe).
Thus, there is “positive doubt” concerning whether the law of factual common error applies to SSPX priests (“doubt of law” can deal with the law’s meaning, application, existence, extension, force or cessation). The doubt also appears to be probable because there are strong arguments in favor of the conclusion that a community of reasonable persons (average Catholics) could be induced to believe a priest celebrating Mass in an SSPX chapel has faculties. Thus, it seems to me that there is “positive and probable doubt of law” which leads the Church to supply jurisdiction to SSPX priests to hear confessions. This is consistent with the Church’s supreme law: The salvation of souls.
In summary, if a fact could induce Catholics to believe that a priest has faculties, the Church supplies jurisdiction under Canon 144 on the grounds of factual common error (first prong). If a positive and probable doubt exists as to the application of this law (of factual common error), the Church still supplies jurisdiction under Canon 144 (second prong). In my opinion, SSPX priests meet both the first and second prong, or, at least the second prong of Canon 144. This is sufficient
for ecclesia supplet to apply.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vincentius
Gold Fish
Location: Now in actual "exile" in the Pacific islands
Posts: 2,530
|
|
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2009, 12:56:PM » |
|
Those Trad orders "reconciled" with Rome are, in a sense, neutered. The FSSP already had one of its superiors replaced for basically being too Traditional an speaking out too harshly against the NO. Rome promptly replaced him with one who agrees with the hermenetic of continuity and is silent on the true causes of the Modernist crisis around us.
Snip, snip...
Stevus, these are canned replies, all of them, including your latest posts. I have heard them before, over and over. Are these the only rationale for the existence of a society of priests outside the pale of the Church? They don't touch on what I brought up in my discussion. For one, I think you are referring to "Protocol 1411" where Cardinal Hoyos tried to strong arm the Fraternity but it didn't fly. You really have no clue as to what the FSSP, ICK, et al., are doing for the salvation of souls, do you? How can you when it appears your whole world revolves around the SSPX (although many times I have seen you waver). I am simply asking why the Society waits on the sidelines for Rome to come to her senses, and meanwhile leans on a couple of Canon Laws for existence that appears doubtful on the surface. The Society asked for and received one of the conditions they proffered if talks of reconciliation were to go forward: the universal application of the Latin Mass. This was conceded. What next? A stalemate. Yet then again, a second concession: the lifting of the excommunications. Rome is ready to accede, but the Society puts yet more obstacles.
Let me state: Christ did not established His church on a weak foundation supported by ERROR, of the "common doubtful" kind, nor on the strength of "positive and probable doubt about law or fact." The foundation of the Church is built on solid ground (that is, divine), not one that would sift and fall apart (such as one relying on the dictates of Canon or ecclesiastical law, which can be derogated anytime).
Are we or are we not under divine chastisement, and does God or does He not confound all those who do not do His will? Being in the state of confusion, we essay to rationalize our situation by debating the meaning of what the Church proposes when she issues laws to govern her members, explaining away all that favors us by a clever twists of words. Tomorrow Peter can abolish Canon 144. What then? He can or don't you think not? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
http://www.alcazar.netAnything we do without offering it to God, is wasted.” -- St. John Vianney, The Curé of Ars When next you hear some attack called an idle paradox, Ask after the dox. Pursue the dox; persecute the dox. In short ask the dox whether it is orthodox. ---G.K. Chesterton, Daily News, October 28, 1911 God Himself does not propose to judge a man until he is dead. So why should you? In thee, O Lord, have I hoped, let me never be confounded: deliver me in thy justice. The world was to be saved by the preaching of the Cross and on the Eucharist, and not by human wisdom or eloquence
|
|
|
|
newschoolman
Member
Posts: 1,422
|
|
« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2009, 01:03:PM » |
|
You'll have to produce the document itself including who issued it and the manner in which it was issued and the full language. I have to do no such thing. I gave you a reference where you can find the Declaration of Suspension. Look it up if you care. If you don't care then ignore it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
newschoolman
Member
Posts: 1,422
|
|
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2009, 01:05:PM » |
|
"Fiction" does not equal "reality". That is my point exactly. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
StevusMagnus
Guest
|
|
« Reply #68 on: January 16, 2009, 01:12:PM » |
|
The Society has stated the pre-conditions publicly early this decade and they have not changed. They are not simply "creating" new conditions once one is fulfilled.
The SSPX never claimed to be the "Church Christ founded".
We are in a Crisis never before seen by the Church. These are extraordinary times and call for extraordinay measures, ala St. Athanasius, not blind obedience to innovation and error.
The fact is the Pope has not abolished Canon 144, but he doesn't even need to. He coul simply make a formal and binding ruling as to whether supplied jurisdiction applies in the case of the Society, but he does not, despite knowing the factual situation. Thus silence speaks louder than words...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
StevusMagnus
Guest
|
|
« Reply #69 on: January 16, 2009, 01:13:PM » |
|
You'll have to produce the document itself including who issued it and the manner in which it was issued and the full language. I have to do no such thing. I gave you a reference where you can find the Declaration of Suspension. Look it up if you care. If you don't care then ignore it. I don't have that book. You are the one making the positive assertion and you have the burden of proving it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
